mark jones karin magaldi john rueter lynn...

Welcome to the Public Forum on

Academic Program Prioritization

November 24, 2014

http://pdxappc.blogspot.com

Sy Adler Talya Bauer Samuel Henry

Mark Jones Lynn SantelmannJohn RueterKarin Magaldi

Michael Bowman Steve Harmon Kathi Ketcheson

Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee

APPC

Sy Adler Talya Bauer Samuel Henry

Mark Jones Lynn SantelmannJohn RueterKarin Magaldi

Michael Bowman Steve Harmon Kathi Ketcheson

• APPC has a strong commitment to engaging and communicating with the PSU community:

• To share information • To solicit feedback

• APPC members are not necessarily experts in academic program prioritization (APP)

• Looking to the broader PSU community, including faculty, staff and students, for guidance, suggestions, and help.

Why are we here today?

Schedule

3:05 Introduction and Overview (10 mins)

3:15 Discussion / Q&A (5 mins)

3:20 What is an “academic program”? (10 mins)


3:45 Criteria, metrics, and questions (15 mins)


4:15 Next steps / scoring (5 mins)


4:30 End

Information sheet

Draft list of academic programs

Get all the latest information and updates at the following url:

http://pdxappc.blogspot.com/2014/11/what-is-academic-program.html

The specific goals for this public forum will be:

• To#provide#an#overview#of#the#APP#process#and#an#opportunity#for#Q&A.#• To#discuss#and#solicit#feedback#on#the#draft#proposals#for#Criteria,#Metrics,#and#

Questions.#(Please#click#that#link,#highlighted#in#green,#to#download#a#copy#of#the#document#so#that#you#can#read#it#before#the#forum#begins!)#

• To#discuss#and#solicit#feedback#on#the#draft#proposed#list#of#academic#programs#(the#full#list,#as#well#as#lists#that#are#limited#to#smaller#sections#of#the#university#is#now#available).#

• To#discuss#plans#for#the#scoring#phase#of#the#APP#process,#including#the#appointment#of#members#of#the#program#scoring#teams#(or#PSTs).#

What is an "Academic Program"?

An#academic'program#is#any'collection'of'activities#that#consumes'resources#and#either:#• contributes#transcripted#courses#to#a#credential#(i.e.,#UNST,#Hons,#IELP);#or#• leads#to#a#credential#(e.g.,#B.A.,#B.S.,#Minor,#certificate,#masters,#doctorate,#...).#

# Process:

List of PSU Academic Programs

Academic Program Prioritization Committee (http://pdxappc.blogspot.com)

November 23, 2014

This document presents a list of PSU programs as input for the Academic Program Prioritization (APP) process at PSU.The details shown here may undergo significant updates in response to feedback from the campus community, particularlyfaculty and program administrators.

The previous APPC proposed the following definition for “academic programs”. an academic program is any collection ofactitivities that consumes resources and either: contributes transcripted courses to a credential (i.e., UNST, Hons, IELP);or leads to a credential (e.g., B.A., B.S., Minor, certificate, masters, doctorate, . . . ). This definition, however, does notaddress issues of granularity: under what conditions should two collections of activities be treated as distinct programs,or combined as a single program? To address this issue, the current APPC developed the following guidelines:

• Two groups of actitivities that share substantially the same resources (i.e., it likely wouldn’t make sense to do onewithout the other) should be combined. Typical examples include: B.A./B.S. (or M.A./M.S.) degrees that di↵er onlyin their general education requirements; multiple flavors of Ph.D. within a single department; minors or certificatesthat are awarded using a subset of the classes in a corresponding major; etc. . . .

• Two groups of activities that di↵er significantly in the resources they use (including faculty, or courses, or facilities,or other factors) should be separated. Typical examples of programs that would be treated as distinct include:undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees; standalone minors; etc. . . .

Using these guidelines, together with university statistics about the numbers of degrees or other credentials that havebeen awarded over the past six academic years (2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14), the APPChas compiled the proposed list of programs shown below. Note, however, that the guidelines are intended only to providean initial default grouping. Final judgements regarding grouping in to programs should be made, in response to thisdocument, by the faculty and administration within individual units and departments.

Each box in the following list represents a collection of one or more activities that, in this initial proposal, would be treatedas a single academic program. The columns in each box include a the name of each component of the program as wellas code whose sux distinguishes between bachelor’s degrees (:B), minors (:m), certificates (:C), master’s degrees (:M),graduate certificates (:G), and doctoral degrees (:D). The table entries also show the numbers of students who receivedthe corresponding credential in each of the six academic years from 2008-14. Blank entries correspond to years in which aprogram had no graduates. It is important to recognize that these blank entries should not be taken as a direct indicatorof program health. For example, blank entries can be expected from programs that have only recently been added tothe catalog and have not yet produced any graduates. In other cases, blank entries may signal changes in the coding ofcourses over the six year perion 2008-14.

CLAS IS (8)

Program Components: 08- 09- 10- 11- 12- 13-Liberal Arts & Sciences Arts and Letters AL:BA:B 67 67 77 74 61 72Liberal Arts & Sciences Arts and Letters :BS:B 89 72 94 100 95 81Totals: 156 139 171 174 156 153

1

Academic Program Prioritization Public Forum

Portland State University, November 24, 2014

FEEDBACK FORM

Thank you for attending the public forum today. We are grateful for your participation and feedback. Please use this

form to capture any immediate comments or suggestions that you would like to pass on before you leave today. But

further feedback will be welcome at any time; contact details are available on our website at pdxappc.blogspot.com.

Please complete the following if you would like to be added to our discussion mailing list (appcdiscuss):

Name:

Preferred Email Address:

Are you are interested in participating as a member of the Program Scoring Teams (PSTs) (or at least in finding out

more about that possibility)? YES / NO (please circle as appropriate)

(Final details about how the PST will be constituted have yet to be determined, but our goal is to ensure a broad

representation of the faculty.)

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the committee, either about the APP process or about the

structure of this forum, please share them here (or on the back of this page):

Do we have your permission to share your comments (anonymously and perhaps in summary form) on the APPC

website? YES / NO (Please circle as appropriate; if you do not answer this, we will assume an answer of NO.)

Thanks again, and we hope that you will also be able to join us for our next public forum in the Winter term!

Draft Criteria, Metrics, and Questions

Feedback form

DRAFT Criteria, Metrics, and Questions for the Academic Program Prioritization Process at PSU

Academic Program Prioritization Committee (http://pdxappc.blogspot.com) Draft for Public Forum, November 24, 2014

Introduction This document proposes a set of six highlevel criteria, together with associated metrics (capturing quantitative data) and questions (capturing qualitative data), for use within the academic program prioritization (APP) process at PSU. These items are shared here in a draft, incomplete form that we hope will stimulate and focus a productive conversation as the APPC, the Senate, and the faculty as a whole work together to finalize the parameters of the APP process. We welcome and strongly encourage any feedback that will help to improve

the draft set of parameters described here.

Scope The scope of the APP process is limited, by the charge to the APPC, to consideration of academic programs, which are defined as collections of activities that consume resources and either contribute transcripted courses to a credential or else lead directly to a credential. As such, a single academic unit or department may house multiple programs, such as one or more bachelors, masters, doctoral, or certificate programs, for example. We recognize that members of the PSU community are engaged in many activities that contribute in important and significant ways to the work of the university but fall outside the immediate scope of any particular academic program, and hence outside the scope of APP. This includes some of the activities within academic units and departments as well as all other parts of the university, including centers, institutes, student services, facilities, and administrative units. We concur with and repeat the observation in the previous APPC committee’s final report that a review that extends to include all of these activities would require the development and use of evaluation procedures and criteria that may be different from those used in APP. For this reason, we also agree with the previous committee’s recommendation that academic program prioritization be pursued as part of a broader evaluation that includes all parts of the

University.

Timeline In keeping with the charge to APPC, it is our goal to finalize the selection of criteria and associated metrics and questions for this iteration of APP before the end of Fall 2014. As a result of interactions with other ongoing, universitywide projects, we expect that this timeline will allow us: (1) to consider and refine the selection of criteria in light of potential revisions to the University’s mission statement resulting from Strategic Planning; and (2) to use work that

Introduction and Overview

3:05-3:15

Origins

Initial Conversations in Senate in Fall 2013

Secretary to the Faculty [email protected] • 650MCB • (503)725-4416/Fax5-4624

TO: Senators and Ex-officio Members to the Senate FR: Martha Hickey, Secretary to the Faculty

The Faculty Senate will hold its regular meeting on November 4, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in room 53 CH.

AGENDA A. Roll

B. *Approval of the Minutes of the October 7, 2013 Meeting C. Announcements and Communications from the Floor

AAUP Bargaining Update

D. Unfinished Business *1. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines Revision Committee Interim Report

See Faculty Senate Schedules web page for full draft text of the proposed revisions D.1b addendum: http://www.pdx.edu/faculty-senate/senate-schedules-materials

E. New Business *1c. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) Curricular Proposals Consent Agenda*2. Scholastic Standards Committee (SSC) Proposal to approve Online Grade-to-Grade

Changes

F. Question Period 1. Questions for Administrators2. Questions from the Floor for the Chair

G. Reports from Officers of the Administration and Committees President’s Report (16:00) Provost’s Report Report of the Vice-President of Research and Strategic Partnerships Report of the Internationalization Council

H. Adjournment

*The following documents are included in this mailing:B Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting of October 7, 2013 and attachments D-1a ,QWHULP5eport oI$GKRF&RPPLWWHHRQWKH5HYLVLRQRI P&T*XLGHOLQHVE-1c Curricular Consent Agenda E-2 Proposal to approve online grade-to-grade changes

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE

Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc CommitteeProcess

Charge: Develop the initial groundwork for how PSU will conduct its academic program

prioritization process

Shelly Chabon

Jon Fink

Kris Henning

Mark Jones

DeLys Ostlund

Barbara Sestak

Steve Harmon

Feb - May 2014

Charge to APPC, June 2014

! ! D#1!adopted!June!2,!2015!MOTION: Faculty Senate approves the creation of the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee as described in item “D-1.”

Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee (May 12, 2014)

As per recommendations from the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee, as adopted, with some changes, by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee and the Provost, PSU Faculty Senate proposes the establishment of the Academic Program Prioritization Ad Hoc Committee (referenced below as the APPC). The President and Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, have given assurance that!the!total!number!of!tenure!line!positions!will!not!decrease!as a direct result of the Academic Program Prioritization Process, although tenured faculty may be assigned to another department or program depending on needs and expertise. COMMITTEE CHARGE: The APPC is charged with conducting work in the initial, parameter-setting phase of the review process; assigning programs to prioritization categories in the second phase; and overseeing assessment and communication components of the review. In doing so the APPC will: • Develop additional specifications for the composition and function of the Prioritization

Scoring Team; • Develop additional specifications for identifying and appointing those responsible for

assessment and communication activities; • Determine, in consultation with the Provost’s office and the Faculty Senate, the parameters

and benchmarks against which programs will be assessed; • Determine the type of information that needs to be gathered; • Compile initial academic program reports submitted by scoring teams; • Solicit feedback on initial reports from each academic program and develop revised

assignment of programs to prioritization categories; • Participate with existing Faculty Senate standing committees, e.g., Budget Committee, in

determining final recommendations. COMMITTEE COMPOSITION: The APPC will consist of 7 faculty members with strong prior leadership experience and an understanding of PSU drawn from multiple roles across campus. The APPC may call on other persons and offices as needed for information. Support for the APPC will be provided by the Provost’s Office and the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. TIMELINE: The APPC will be appointed Spring 2014 by the President based on recommendations from the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, the Faculty Advisory Committee, and the Provost through a nomination process. Assessment parameters and benchmarks, as well as type of information that needs to be collected will be determined early so that OIRP and units can begin preparing information mid-Fall for submission to APPC in January 2015. APPC will receive, compile, and classify scoring reports, and will work with selected programs to collect additional information beginning mid-Winter 2015. APPC will make revised recommendations early to mid-Spring 2015. Follow-up hearings and joint meetings with standing committees will take place during Spring Term with final recommendations delivered to the Provost and President by the first week of June 2015.

What is Program Prioritization?

prioritizationprogramsprogramsprogramsprograms

(identifying programs requires discipline-specific insight!)

Examples:• Anthropology B.A./B.S.(including the minor)• Religious Studies minor• Computer Science M.S.• Public Affairs and Policy Ph.D.• …

categoriesprogramsprogramsprogramsprograms

• “Growth opportunity”• “Healthy”• “Experiencing challenges”

categoriesscoring

academicpriorities

programsprogramsprogramsprograms

categoriesscoring

criteria


Relation to missionDemandQuality

ProductivityFinancial performance

Trajectory

categoriesscoring

criteriametrics

(quantitative)


questions (qualitative)

Leverage OIRP analysis to minimize burden on program administrators

Capture details/nuances that are not apparent in

the raw numbers

understanding

Why do we need a process like this?

This is about taking stock, developing a university-wide understanding of who we

are and what we do

programsprogramsprogramsprograms understanding

decisions


This is about guiding strategic investments in programs that best support institutional goals


understanding?

decisions


Without it, we risk: Decision making in a vacuum

programsprogramsprogramsprograms understanding?

decisions?


Without it, we risk: Stagnation, inability to respond & reallocate

resources


understanding

decisions

Why now?

Allow the thoughtful, careful development of a regularized process.

Do not wait for an emergency!


APP in the Context of Shared Governance

Academic Program Prioritization (APP) does not introduce any new, special powers: - Any recommendations that APP generates are subject

to all of the usual oversight and procedures

recommendationsprogramsprogramsprogramsprograms

decisions proposalsSenate

Discussion / Q&A

3:15-3:20

What is an“academic program”?

3:20-3:30

An academic program is any collection of activities that consumes resources and either:

• contributes transcripted courses to a credential (e.g., UNST, Honors, IELP); or

• leads to an academic credential (e.g., Minor, BA, BS, Certificate, Graduate Degree).

What is an “Academic Program”? Collections of activities …

… that consume resources …… … and either contribute classes …

Honors IELP

UNST

… or lead directly to a credential.

Honors IELP

UNST

BA/BS minors MA/MS

certificatesPhD

What remains?

Honors IELP

UNST

BA/BS minors MA/MS

certificatesPhD

AdvisingAthleticsDining

FacilitiesFinanceHousingParking

Research …

What remains?



Research …

We recognize that all members of the PSU community, including those outside academic departments, contribute to the work of PSU in important and significant ways that fall outside the scope of any particular program

What remains?



Research …

We recognize that all members of the PSU community, including those outside academic departments, contribute to the work of PSU in important and significant ways that fall outside the scope of any particular program

… but these activities fall outside the scope of APP

The Granularity Problem

Should the whole university be treated as a single academic program?

… probably not!

The Granularity Problem

Should every single class section be treated as a single academic program?

… probably not!

• Programs that share substantially the same resources should be combined

• Programs that differ significantly in the resources they use should be separate

• A typical department/unit houses multiple programs

• Defer to departments/units for final judgement

Granularity GuidelinesList of PSU Academic Programs

Academic Program Prioritization Committee (http://pdxappc.blogspot.com)

November 23, 2014

This document presents a list of PSU programs as input for the Academic Program Prioritization (APP) process at PSU.The details shown here may undergo significant updates in response to feedback from the campus community, particularlyfaculty and program administrators.

The previous APPC proposed the following definition for “academic programs”. an academic program is any collection ofactitivities that consumes resources and either: contributes transcripted courses to a credential (i.e., UNST, Hons, IELP);or leads to a credential (e.g., B.A., B.S., Minor, certificate, masters, doctorate, . . . ). This definition, however, does notaddress issues of granularity: under what conditions should two collections of activities be treated as distinct programs,or combined as a single program? To address this issue, the current APPC developed the following guidelines:

• Two groups of actitivities that share substantially the same resources (i.e., it likely wouldn’t make sense to do onewithout the other) should be combined. Typical examples include: B.A./B.S. (or M.A./M.S.) degrees that di↵er onlyin their general education requirements; multiple flavors of Ph.D. within a single department; minors or certificatesthat are awarded using a subset of the classes in a corresponding major; etc. . . .

• Two groups of activities that di↵er significantly in the resources they use (including faculty, or courses, or facilities,or other factors) should be separated. Typical examples of programs that would be treated as distinct include:undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees; standalone minors; etc. . . .

Using these guidelines, together with university statistics about the numbers of degrees or other credentials that havebeen awarded over the past six academic years (2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14), the APPChas compiled the proposed list of programs shown below. Note, however, that the guidelines are intended only to providean initial default grouping. Final judgements regarding grouping in to programs should be made, in response to thisdocument, by the faculty and administration within individual units and departments.

Each box in the following list represents a collection of one or more activities that, in this initial proposal, would be treatedas a single academic program. The columns in each box include a the name of each component of the program as wellas code whose sux distinguishes between bachelor’s degrees (:B), minors (:m), certificates (:C), master’s degrees (:M),graduate certificates (:G), and doctoral degrees (:D). The table entries also show the numbers of students who receivedthe corresponding credential in each of the six academic years from 2008-14. Blank entries correspond to years in which aprogram had no graduates. It is important to recognize that these blank entries should not be taken as a direct indicatorof program health. For example, blank entries can be expected from programs that have only recently been added tothe catalog and have not yet produced any graduates. In other cases, blank entries may signal changes in the coding ofcourses over the six year perion 2008-14.

CLAS IS (8)

Program Components: 08- 09- 10- 11- 12- 13-Liberal Arts & Sciences Arts and Letters AL:BA:B 67 67 77 74 61 72Liberal Arts & Sciences Arts and Letters :BS:B 89 72 94 100 95 81Totals: 156 139 171 174 156 153

1

• Do we have an appropriate breakdown for the programs in your department/unit?

• Look for misplaced, or missing items, as well as items that should be combined or separated

An Example: Computer Science

Why is APP restricted to Academic Programs?

•[Because that’s what it says in our charge …]

•Narrowing the scope allows us to adopt more specific criteria, metrics, and questions that can be applied to the items under review

•This is a faculty-driven process, so it makes sense to focus on items at the core of faculty expertise

•… but if we limit the scope, we don’t see the full picture, and we risk bad decision making …

Why is APP restricted to Academic Programs?

A = “growth opportunity”

C = “experiencing difficulty”

B = everything else …




What if there are unnecessary items in B that are not part of an academic program?

What if there are unnecessary items in B that are not part of an academic program?



D = unnecessary items outside academic programs




D = unnecessary items outside academic programs


• APP is restricted in scope to academic programs

• We concur with the previous committee’s recommendation that: APP be pursued as part of a broader evaluation that includes all parts of the University

Discussion / Q&A

3:30-3:45

Criteria, Metrics, and Questions

3:45-4:00

DRAFT Criteria, Metrics, and Questions

DRAFT Criteria, Metrics, and Questions for the Academic Program Prioritization Process at PSU Academic Program Prioritization Committee (APPC)

Draft to Faculty Senate, November 3, 2014

Introduction This document proposes a set of six highlevel criteria, together with associated metrics (capturing quantitative data) and questions (capturing qualitative data), for use within the academic program prioritization (APP) process at PSU. These items are shared here in a draft, incomplete form that we hope will stimulate and focus a productive conversation as the APPC, the Senate, and the faculty as a whole work together to finalize the parameters of the APP process. We welcome and strongly encourage any feedback that will help to improve the draft

set of parameters described here.

Scope The scope of the APP process is limited, by the charge to the APPC, to consideration of academic programs, which are defined as collections of activities that consume resources and either contribute transcripted courses to a credential or else lead directly to a credential. As such, a single academic unit or department may house multiple programs, such as one or more bachelors, masters, doctoral, or certificate programs, for example. We recognize that members of the PSU community are engaged in many activities that contribute in important and significant ways to the work of the university but fall outside the immediate scope of any particular academic program, and hence outside the scope of APP. This includes some of the activities within academic units and departments as well as all other parts of the university, including centers, institutes, student services, facilities, and administrative units. We concur with and repeat the observation in the previous APPC committee’s final report that a review that extends to include all of these activities would require the development and use of evaluation procedures and criteria that may be different from those used in APP. For this reason, we also agree with the previous committee’s recommendation that academic program prioritization be pursued as part of a broader evaluation that includes all parts of the University.

Timeline In keeping with the charge to APPC, it is our goal to finalize the selection of criteria and associated metrics and questions for this iteration of APP before the end of Fall 2014. As a result of interactions with other ongoing, universitywide projects, we expect that this timeline will allow us: (1) to consider and refine the selection of criteria in light of potential revisions to the University’s mission statement resulting from Strategic Planning; and (2) to use work that is

Draft, incomplete, proposed, …Feedback strongly encouraged!

Proposed Criteria

• Demand, including both internal (within PSU) and external

• Quality, of program inputs and outcomes

• Productivity, taking considerations of size and scope into account

• Financial Performance, including revenue and costs

• Relation to Mission, including contributions to knowledge, scholarship, and community engagement

• Trajectory, including past history and future opportunities

Metrics and Questions

• Quantitative metrics and qualitative questions are needed:

• to identify specific data that will be needed/used in the APP scoring process

• to clarify and explain the meaning of each criterion in more concrete terms

• Numeric data alone will not capture important details of context and nuance that are needed to document and understand the contributions of each program

Critical Challenges and Goals• Select metrics and questions (and develop associated scoring instruments) such that a consistent, rigorous approach can be applied uniformly across all programs

• Data collection will impose a burden on program administrators; we need to minimize this!

• Eliminate unnecessary metrics/questions

• Leverage OIRP and other sources where possible

• Provide clear, strong guidance on what is expected for remaining items

Current Status• We recognize that the formulations of metrics and questions in the current draft DO NOT MEET these standards

• Commitment: No data collection will begin until these issues have been resolved, and until the rubrics or other scoring instruments have been developed and shared with the campus community

Other Considerations• Previous committee proposed that data for APP be provided for a spread of three years

• Some data can only be provided at the unit/department level: it will provide a context but not a direct match for evaluating programs

• We must be sensitive to discipline-specific standards, expectations, and natural variations between programs

• Data from SEM Planning will be available to programs in timeframe for data collection

• Strategic planning: revised mission in near term

Examples from the Document From Proposals to Parameters

• Add what is missing, remove what is unnecessary, clarify what remains

• This applies to criteria as well as metrics and questions:

• Example: should there be a new criterion (i.e., column) for “Research, Scholarly, and Creative Work”?

• The table already includes some metrics and questions that address this particular topic

• Adding a new column provides a way to recognize this component of the work of our academic programs

• What do you think?

Discussion / Q&A

4:00-4:15

Next Steps / Scoring

4:15-4:20

Overview of Process

Phase 1: initial parameter setting

Phase 2: data gathering and

analysis (Program Scoring Teams)

Phase 3: reflection/

recommendation

Assessment

future iterations of the process

Communication

PSU Community

Next Steps• We are keen to receive your feedback on the criteria, metrics and questions

• We hope to finalize the choices for this iteration of APP before the start of the winter term

• In the meantime, APPC is focussing on scoring:

• Development of scoring instruments, rubrics, etc.

• Appointment of program scoring team members

• Please consider putting your name forward as a potential scoring team member

• Expect another public forum on this topic in Winter!

… by the numbers …

Founded: 1946Moved to the South Park Blocks: 1952Campus Acreage: 50Total Number of Students: 29,452Employees (Full- and Part-time): 6,521Annual Full-time Tuition & Fees: $7,878Alumni: 150,000TOTAL: 197,799

Discussion / Q&A

4:20-4:30

http://pdxappc.blogspot.com/

[email protected]

[email protected]

Thank You!Academic Program Prioritization Public Forum

Portland State University, November 24, 2014

FEEDBACK FORM

Thank you for attending the public forum today. We are grateful for your participation and feedback. Please use this

form to capture any immediate comments or suggestions that you would like to pass on before you leave today. But

further feedback will be welcome at any time; contact details are available on our website at pdxappc.blogspot.com.

Please complete the following if you would like to be added to our discussion mailing list (appcdiscuss):

Name:

Preferred Email Address:

Are you are interested in participating as a member of the Program Scoring Teams (PSTs) (or at least in finding out

more about that possibility)? YES / NO (please circle as appropriate)

(Final details about how the PST will be constituted have yet to be determined, but our goal is to ensure a broad

representation of the faculty.)

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the committee, either about the APP process or about the

structure of this forum, please share them here (or on the back of this page):

Do we have your permission to share your comments (anonymously and perhaps in summary form) on the APPC

website? YES / NO (Please circle as appropriate; if you do not answer this, we will assume an answer of NO.)

Thanks again, and we hope that you will also be able to join us for our next public forum in the Winter term!

mark jones karin magaldi john rueter lynn...

Documents